Neondo & another v Machengo (Environment and Land Appeal E053 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7317 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega dismissed a family's land appeal, confirming that a registered buyer's title stands unless fraud is strictly proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellants proved their claim as contained in their counterclaim
- 2.Whether the respondent proved that he acquired the suit property lawfully
- 3.Whether the trial court was right in arriving at its decision
Key legal issues
#Identity of the 1st appellant and the registered owner Ashuma Namiba
Wycliffe Khasakhala Neondo is not Ashuma Namiba alias Seth Namiba Ashuma and is not the registered proprietor of the suit properties
The court found the alleged alias unsupported between 1979 and 2022; a 2022 affidavit, CPE certificate and school identity card did not create the nexus. The registration process under the Land Consolidation Act predated 1965, making it improbable that a child was registered. He was therefore an imposter claiming through the back door.
Whether the appellants proved the counterclaim for adverse possession
The counterclaim failed; adverse possession was neither pleaded properly nor proved, and 2nd appellant's alleged purchase had no evidence of payment or occupation
Adverse possession was not sought in the counterclaim and cannot be raised against a person said to have fraudulently acquired the property. The 2nd appellant's claim of purchase in 2007 had no proof of payment or occupation, and 2007 to 2019 is not 39 years.
Whether the respondent lawfully acquired the suit property
Yes; the respondent's title, obtained through purchase from the deceased's daughters after succession, was lawful and indefeasible under section 26 of the Land Registration Act
Allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and conspiracy were not strictly proved. The daughters lawfully inherited and transferred the land to the respondent, whose title could not be vitiated. The appellants had no legal claim and were trespassers.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the court must re-assess and re-evaluate the evidence and make its own conclusions, allowing for the fact that it did not see or hear the witnesses
- A registered proprietor's title is indefeasible except on proof of fraud, misrepresentation, illegality or corruption
- Allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved to a standard above balance of probability but below beyond reasonable doubt
- A claim for adverse possession can only be directed against the true owner of the land
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Butere Principal Magistrate's Court
- Butere PMC ELC No. 17 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the trial magistrate's court (Environment and Land Court)
Relief refused
#Allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the trial court's judgment to permit the counterclaim
The appeal lacked merit; the counterclaim for adverse possession was not proved and adverse possession cannot lie against a person said to have fraudulently acquired the property
Costs of the appeal to be paid by the respondent
Costs were awarded to the respondent instead
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the premises, I find no merit in this appeal which I hereby dismiss with costs to the respondent.
Wyclifie Khasakhala Neondo is an imposter. For those reasons I agree with the trial court that indeed the 1st appellant herein was claiming the suit property through the back door.
unless there is proof that the acquisition of title by a registered proprietor was by fraud, misrepresentation, illegality or corruption, registration vests in a proprietor of land, absolute and indefeasible rights.
a claim for adverse possession is a claim based on limitation of time and can only be directed against the true owner of the land.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Neondo & another v Machengo (Environment and Land Appeal E053 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7317 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kakamega ELC Appeal (from Butere PMC ELC No. 17 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7317/eng@2025-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.